Microlight pilot Red Arrows near-miss

[Puritan]

From: http://www.thisisbrighton.co.uk (http://www.thisisbrighton.co.uk/brighton__hove/news/NEWS0.html)

Pilot's Red Arrows near-miss

by Sam Thomson

A microlight pilot taking the scenic route drifted into the flight path of the Red Arrows display team.

Alexander Stevenson's tiny craft was spotted seconds before the famous aerobatic flight prepared to roar across the sky.

Thousands of spectators at the Airbourne Festival on Eastbourne seafront watched as the microlight was forced to fly out of the danger zone.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) launched an investigation following the near-miss in August last year.

Bank clerk Stevenson, 26, was yesterday fined after admitting flying within the restricted area.

Roderick James, representing the CAA, told Eastbourne magistrates how event organisers spotted the light aircraft seconds before the Red Arrows were due to launch into their 500mph display.

He said: "The RAF pilot had been in a holding area inside the restricted zone and was just about to leave when he was alerted to the fact there was another aircraft in the display area."

He said although the flying restrictions were temporary, all pilots were legally required to read the Notices To Airmen (NOTAMS), which detail no-go areas, before taking off.

Ray Blount, defending, said Stevenson, from Ringwood, Hampshire, and his father, Michael, had been flying from Kent to Wiltshire when they decided to change course to admire the scenery.

He said: "They were originally going to fly cross-country on a route that took them near the Gatwick area.

"As they got towards Sussex they thought, because it was a beautiful day, they would change their route across the coast.

"They had not checked the NOTAMS for that area and did not know the air show was on."

Imposing the fine, Sally Wallace, chairwoman of the bench, said: "I'm sure you are well aware if you change your flight plan you are supposed to make every possible effort to clear the route and make sure you are not going to be infringing any restrictions."

After the hearing, Stevenson said: "I have learnt my lesson and I will never make the same mistake again."

Their air show, which took place in August last year, attracted 650,000 people to Eastbourne.

Event organisers Eastbourne Borough Council said the incident caused a "small delay" and every precaution was being taken to ensure this year's show runs to plan.

A spokeswoman said: "We remind pilots of small aircraft to ensure they operate within the normal safety procedures."

Stevenson, of College Road, admitted flying below 5,000ft above sea level in a restricted area, at Eastbourne Magistrates' Court.

He was fined £250 and ordered to pay £350 costs for creating a "potential danger".

[rustle]

6th August 2002 was when the new AIS NOTAM system came online.

I wonder why he didn't use that as his defence. :rolleyes:

Only now (April 2003) are we again able to reliably get NOTAM information.

Although you might think he would have seen 650,000 people in Eastbourne. ;)

[PPRuNe Radar]

And the counter prosecution case might be that he could have used the freephone number which has been available for years ?? :rolleyes:

There are two available.

One which is a recorded message giving airspace upgrade information and temporary Restricted Area information.

0500 354802

And one which will put you through to a human where you can get a more specific brief on the same.

0800 515544

Either would have made this pilot aware of the display and the airspace affected.

Both are detailed in GA Safety Sense leaflet 18A Military Low Flying published in 2000 (the previous version was no doubt published a lot earlier).

GA Safety Sense Leaflet 18A (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/ssl18.pdf)


The pilot admitted that he had learned his lesson and, by inference, that his airmanship was not what it might have been.

Let's not try and blame the system but for once let the pilot take responsibility for his actions. He will be a better pilot for the experience and all are fortunate that the incident did not have far reaching consequences for himself, the Red Arrows, and the public.

[FlyingForFun]

PPRuNe Radar,

I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree with any of it. But I think the point which rustle is trying to make is that the change to the Notams system did cause safety problems, and although every effort has been made to resolve these problems, no one from any official body has so far admitted that any of the problems were safety-related.

Of course this pilot should have made every effort to obtain Notams before his flight (or his change of route). So should every other pilot who stopped reading Notams when the new system was introduced. Many people have admitted falling into this category - and although the responsibility falls firmly on the shoulders of the pilots concerned, it would be nice to hear someone admit that the skies were less safe after the introduction of the Notams system, for whatever reason.

Anyway, back to the case in hand - glad that everything worked out ok. The fact that the microlight was spotted shows the professionalism of these guys - how many of us, flying much slower aircraft, have trouble spotting a lone microlight pilot, let alone spotting him somewhere we're not expecing him to be? Well done to everyone concerned.

FFF
---------------

[rustle]

"Let's not try and blame the system but for once let the pilot take responsibility for his actions."

Not blaming the system, guv.

More cases are won/lost on smaller technicalities than this.

Maybe his "narrow route brief" was too narrow :rolleyes:

The key lesson, I would have thought, is that ALL pilots realise the importance of checking NOTAMs, not only for where they have planned to fly, but where they might end up flying - and a "narrow route brief" might not be the best instrument to achieve this...

This thread originally started in "Rumours and News" and not "Private Flying"

[Genghis the Engineer]

I recall an incident, later in the same month, when I did check the NOTAMS, failed to see in 30+ pages of largely irrelevant text an airshow going on and was only saved later from my own severe embarrassement by an early radio call to an airfield en-route, which was holding said airshow. So, I think that the defence of the NOTAM system chaos would be useable - if he'd tried to check the NOTAMS and failed to spot the report.

Notwithstanding that, it would appear from this that he didn't check NOTAMS, and didn't make any radio calls to local services which would have alerted him to the show going on.

I do ask myself however if prosecuting somebody who made a genuine mistake, has admitted to it, and says that they've learned from it is either sensible or consistent with the "no blame" philosophy we are supposed to try and operate in civil aviation.

G


N.B. On a purely technical point, this was reported elsewhere as the aircraft type being a Pulsar, which is a homebuilt light aircraft, not a microlight. Credit where it's due :p

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

OK, shoot me down. In my opinion ignorance is no defence. We all work (and pay) for the privileges of our various licenses. There are certain things we are required, by law, to ensure. Airworthiness, aircrew fitness, NOTAMS etc etc....

If we do not personally ensure these aspects, we are failing in meeting our responsibilities. Yes, AIS may also have failed, but an individual cannot use this as a counter-argument.

[Megaton]

You make this sound like an academic argument. Somebody will get killed. Red Arrows cut short a practice at Holbeach last week because a number of microlights infringed the TRA. I don't dispute their right to fly in unrestricted airspace but this shows lack of discipline and poor training.

This is not a legal argument. The TRA is there for a very good reason. Let's not bandy words about " technicalities"; these people are breaking the law.

We all quibble about over regulation but there are quite clearly pilots out there who are a flight safety hazard; no argument.

[Edited to register a vested interest and a few beers}

[rustle]

Not a "shoot down" as such, I gave them up in October 2002, but the reason we have CHIRP, MORs, etc is because things don't always turn out as "expected".

Ignorance is no excuse, agreed.

However,

With the cutover to the new NOTAM systems there were problems. Fact. Acknowledged by AIS, NATS and CAA.

Someone diligently relying on "the system" to give them the information they required could easily have been mislead (or worse, completely uninformed) about the air-display times and/or location.

To expect pilots, no matter how diligent, to telephone and check NOTAMs after they have pre-briefed from the State's AIS site is näive and not "real world".

The fault, if any, is with the pilot for not talking to 124.6 and checking the NOTAMS enroute once the decision to re-route was made.

If there were no issues with the briefing system, why have NATS spent >£100K and 8 months fixing it?

[Megaton]

Red Arrows diplays and practice displays do not suddenly appear. Certainly not before somebody gets airborne.

[rustle]

Ham Phisted "Red Arrows diplays and practice displays do not suddenly appear. Certainly not before somebody gets airborne."

No-one here has said they do.

What I have suggested is that where previously the whole FIR NOTAM brief was available nearly everywhere, this pilot may have briefed his planned route and then changed his mind.

Re-read what has been said, and tell me I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

BTW, I did a quick PPRuNe search and found that you've never actually contributed to any of the NOTAM discussions before, so if you have a moment please have a read of these and see how wonderful it was:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80805
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81901
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78771
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81663
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=81582
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77242
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75945
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66083
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69630
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71660
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63902
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69506
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64873

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

I was involved in the organising of another Air Display some years back. During the course of the day, and despite the event being NOTAM'd months in advance, and despite the fact that there were thousands of people on the ground, and 10-15 aircraft parked on an otherwise disused airfield, 2 light aircraft flew straight through the display causing an RAF Hawk and a civvie Mustang to break off from their displays.

Unfortunately for the 2 pilots involved, a CAA man was there...:eek: He managed to trace one of them by calling a nearby airfield where his mate worked, and he got the aircraft followed on radar.

Not sure if they got taken to court, as there wasnt any TR airspace in force, but I think they certainly got their knuckles rapped for poor flight planning.

[Mike Cross]

Rustle

The Manager of UK AIS may be on holiday but he's watching you!

He points out that the new website went live on 19 August last year. Airbourne took place on 15-18 August with the Reds scheduled to display on 15-17 August.

6 August was when ADIMS went live, not when the website went live. The old A8's were still available when this flight took place.

Mike:E

[rustle]

Cheers Mike (and Phil) :)

Guess that answers this: I wonder why he didn't use that as his defence

Lucky I only suggested and used words like might instead of definitives like some of the other posters :hmm: :oh: :yuk:

[Flyin'Dutch']

Rustle, darling,

We all know that the entire AIS/Notam saga is very close to your heart. I and I am sure many others are very grateful for the time and effort you and your confreres made to contribute to the improvements that have made the site into the useable format that it has today.

However with all due respect I think that you are now barking up the wrong tree.

At any time you could ring the friendly folk from the briefing room and they would tell you exactly what was going on and which NOTAMs were active,

The pilot was wrong and he has accepted that.

To suggest to claim that it was somebody else's fault would have been a bit of b*ll*x.

The fine and costs seem to have been a small price to pay for the transgression made, a wise lesson learned.

FD

PS: Don't think you are entirely fair on HF for stating that he would not have known what was going on re the AIS just because he did not contribute to the threads. After all some people have a life outside PPRuNe and not the compulsion to be as prolific on here as you (and I!) ;)

[Megaton]

And one can actually read a thread without having to contribute. (Cheap defence since I'm unlikely to read any threads which contain the phrase AIS!) ;)

[vintage ATCO]

Pilots have been busting display airspace since time immemorial and trying to link it to the relatively recent AIS troubles, however dear to your heart, rustle, as FD says, is barking up the wrong tree.

I was involved in a bust by a light a/c of a Reds' display at Henlow several years ago (not sure if it was a TRA in those days.) Once the intruder was seen to be leaving the area (I was on radar) the Reds ran in, only for the intruder to turn round and come back! :eek:

I'm involved in several special events in the course of the year and we go out of our way to publicise them, both through offical channels and directly with adjacent airfields. It still doesn't work, sigh. :ooh:

A balloon lifted off just north of Old Warden last year with a Spitfire displaying. The balloon had a very famous name on it!! :D I imagine the passengers appreciated the look of the Spit they must have got. :rolleyes:

[Heliport]

The pilot made a mistake, admitted it and learned an embarrassing lesson. A stiff warning letter or a 'no tea and biscuits' meeting with the CAA would have been sufficient. As Genghis said earlier, prosecuting him was OTT.

[bletchleytugie]

I picked up on this thread earlier in the day - the NOTAM system was working, the information was also available on two seperate Mauve AICs, one listed Jet Formation Displays, the other one specically referred to the event at Eastbourne. Lets all take a lesson from this and be a bit more diligent in our pre-flight planning - as previously mentioned sooner or later someone is going to get hurt

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

Heliport,

Sorry, but you're wrong here. Prosecution is always the last resort, but a TRA is just that - Restricted airspace! It's there for a reason. If the pilot had flown through any Nuclear Restricted area, or firing range, or weapons area, he would also have been prosecuted. Same as he would have been if he had flown from North to South across the London CTR

Just imagine if the Microlight pilot flying along the coast had actually collided with the 9 RAFAT Hawks in the middle of the display! Nine Hawks into a crowd of 100,000 spectators would definately have made the news that night.

I think he got what he deserved..

FYI, he was one of about 5 aircraft who flew through the display, unfortunately, he was unlucky cos he got caught!

[Flying Lawyer]

Prof Dexter
Don't you think the pilot learned his lesson in the seconds immediately following the incident?
Like all of us, you're obviously concerned about flight safety. Forgive my curiosity, but what do you think was achieved (in flight safety terms) by prosecuting him which couldn't have been achieved by requiring him to attend at the CAA and pointing out the errors of his ways in no uncertain terms?

[Flyin'Dutch']

FL

Indeedy! And how about the waste of CAA money and the court's time.

Prof DD

If they are truly his mates they will club together and stomp up 'their' part of the fine, and a few pints for the guy to steady his nerves.

Must all in all have been a bit of a scary undertaking, both the incident and being at the receiving end of the CAA's wrath.

FD

[Megaton]

So when does the CAA prosecute? When there's been a major accident? Probably too late then. What has this achieved? Lots of publicity and I'm sure everyone who's read this thread will make damn sure they check their NOTAMS this weekend.

[dmjw01]

On a completely different note, I think there's one person who deserves a bit of credit in all of this. Sam Thomson, the journo who wrote the article, seems to have avoided the temptation to write a load of sensationalist tripe and instead produced a level-headed account of the facts. Just think how easy it would have been to spice the story up...

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

Flying Lawyer,

Since when has a chat with 'the CAA' ever been a deterrent? I have received 'a severe talking to' from the CAA, and was quite surprised at what nice people they all are down at the Belgrano!

"Old chap, please make sure you read NOTAMs. Now off with you, and don't do it again" As I said, try justifying that action when a few Hawks end up in a crowd of Joe Public!

How do we know if the pilot even saw what was happening behind him? He probably didnt even realise he'd done anything wrong until he received a call from the Ministry. But I bet he'll never do it again. I realise you are in the profession of defending pilots who transgress, but IM(H)O, he got what he deserved.


Flying Dutch,

The other aircraft were not his mates, as they were an assortment of single and twin engined aircraft that infringed the TRA at various times throughout the day.

Thems me views, but more than happy to be shouted at by those with louder voices.
:ok:

Toodle Pip

[Flying Lawyer]

Prof DD
I do, as you say, defend pilots who transgress or are accused of transgressing. From a purely professional point of view, the more pilots, operators and airlines the CAA prosecute the more work for me. ;) I was expressing my opinion as a pilot.

I think there are other means which are far more effective in flight safety terms than prosecuting a pilot who's made a mistake.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Although I've thankfully never received one, I've had sight of the content and delivery of CAA enforcement branch's "little talks". I think they have more than a minimal deterent effect.

G

[Bright-Ling]

As someone who has do deal with unauthorised infringers on a weekly basis I say he got what he deserved. Not only from a safety point of view, but as a cost implication on airlines sometimes this is not fair. A few weeks ago, departures at LHR were stopped for 6 minutes. That's 6 jumbos full of passengers waiting for the bozo to leave the zone! 2 aircraft had to break off etc. Carnage!!

However, why not make the penalty fit the crime? Why fine them £1500. As one CAA investigator said to me once, it just means someone is probably going to be £1500 less current!

Why not make the penalty be a number of hours retraining with a flying school (not a mate!). Say 5/10 hours nav practice/planning etc - but then a mini-test at the end.

(I know this thread is slightly different but you catch my drift?)

OR

What about a points system?

(6 pts for stopping LHR outbounds - and banned at 11 points!!)

Fining somebody rarely makes them a better nav.

[slim_slag]

bright-ling,

Looks like the guy made a mistake, bust a reg, no plane or person was in danger, admitted it and ended up with a CRIMINAL RECORD!

Sorry, but I think criminal records are reserved for wife beaters, burglers, thieves and people who drive cars into parked aircraft.
Surely you cannot say he "he got what he deserved." I guess you are a controller with your own licence and responsibilities. So when you next make a mistake and a 747 gets safely sent around, you will turn yourself in and get down the local mag court nice and early to be criminalised and verbally spanked by the local beak who doesn't even know what a flight plan is?

I'm not sure even a CAA enforcement was appropriate here. Round these parts (a much busier TMA than London), if you bust some airspace you get told to call a controller and have a chat. It's not nice to be told to find a pen and paper to take down a phone number, it happened to me only a couple of years ago :). A gentle bollocking from a controller who knows his stuff is far more effective and thought provoking than a £250 fine, IMO. If the pilot is an arse, then the local FAA office will get involved, and that's not too good (so I hear). Spend the £250 on a decent and starving instructor, rather than put it in a fund for sending vandals to the seaside in some misguided attempt of reform.

Of course this requires controllers and GA to have a good relationship and a bit of mutual respect. We have it here, sounds like it's not the same elsewhere.

Edited to add this, which is relevant.

In the USA, the FAA is concerned about aviation safety, and recognises that we all (pilots and controllers) make mistakes and don't like to get into trouble. So they have a program organized by NASA (so independant of FAA) which encourages us to report mistakes we make, and why we made them. I think you have something similar in the UK, CHIRPS is it called?

The great thing about the NASA (ASRS (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/main_nf.htm) is the correct name) form is FAR 91.25

The Administrator of the FAA will not use reports submitted to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program (or information derived therefrom) in any enforcement action except information concerning accidents or criminal offenses which are wholly excluded from the Program

So it's also called the 'get out of jail free' form :). NOt sure if you have one in the UK, but you need one, and this guy should be treated as if he filled one out.

I've only filled one out once, I was a bit of a naughty boy around San Diego class B many years ago, and I was even naughtier by afterwards diving below a mountain where I knew they didn't have radar cover :ok: :ok: Anyway, no harm was done, but I filled it out when I should have been busted. Anyway, I hope the reason I was a naughty boy was of use to them because that's the point.

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

Looks like the guy made a mistake, bust a reg, no plane or person was in danger, admitted it and ended up with a CRIMINAL RECORD!

Slag,

We are talking about the UK, not the US of A here.

Yes, he made a mistake, Yes he bust a 'reg', yes he admitted it and yes, he ended up with a Criminal Record. But was there any danger to others? Almost certainly. On the day, it all ended safely. But just imagine if the said Microlight pilot had collided with the 9 ship formation of red Fast Jets. Scenario goes something like this:

Red leader runs in to display, no other aircraft seen. On pulling up into a formation loop, with 8 others in close formation, he spots the microlight on collision course, but with no time to react. What does he do? Break the formation up, or carry on, knowing that a collision is almost certain. A wingman hits the microlight with his left wing, causing him to roll rapidly into the rest of the formation. Carnage results and most of the aicraft fall into the sea.
However, a few aircarft fall into the crowd of 50-100,000 people killing hundreds of innocent people.

Thats why a TRA is in force, to try and prevent this scenario from happening. If people choose to ignore, or through lack of effective flight planning fly through oblivious, then they deserve everything they get.

Why is this incident such a problem? Similar airspace exists for the protection of Air/Air firing, training and weapons trials etc, but no-one ever gets uptight when pilots are prosecuted for flying through.. Or is it that this attracted headline news?

FYI, I deal with incidents like this every day, and I get very disillusioned with the lack of nav standards demonstrated by a lot of GA pilots. Makes me want to bite my own head off!
:{

[Flying Lawyer]

Prof DD says: "Prosecution is always the last resort."
I don't know where the professor has gained that impression but, in my experience, it is not true.
I know that's what the CAA claims but, in practice, if they have enough evidence they prosecute - even if a breach is trivial.

Given that the pilot in this case was prosecuted, I agree the penalty imposed by the court was fair.

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

FL,

Isnt that what the law is for?

"This is the ANO, dont break the rules. If you break the rules, you risk prosecution. If the prosecutor has evidence that you broke the law, then you get a conviction, unless the defence can come up with something to prevent it".

The above sentence can also read something like this:

"Murder is against the law, dont do it. If you commit murder, you almost certainly risk prosecution. If the prosecution has evidence that you broke the law, then you will get a conviction, unless the defence counsel can come up with something to prevent it".

Thats how I see it, and IMVHO, aviation is no different to other areas of the law. But then I'm just another pilot, not a legal expert. I'm not advocating that pilots are fined for minor offences, such as clipping the corner of the Stansted zone, but for serious breaches with very serious implications such as this one, albeit done innocently, I reckon it's only fair.

I see that Bright-Ling and I share the same view. Maybe thats becuase we almost certainly have similar jobs!

The case is closed on this one, FL.

[Flying Lawyer]

Prof DD
I'm not sure what you mean by "The case is closed on this one". If you mean you don't want to discuss it further, that's fine.
If the highly emotive scenario you describe in such melodramatic style occurred, the pilot would almost certainly be prosecuted for manslaughter and go to prison for some years - it's very easy to make almost any incident sound as if it narrowly missed being the worst disaster in aviation history.

"Why is this incident such a problem?"
I don't think anyone has suggested it is. I thought we'd moved on to discuss more general points about the benefits to flight safety of prosecuting v. more constructive methods, punishment v. education etc.

Slim Slag
As the prof says, "We are talking about the UK, not the US of A here" but don't let that put you off joining in the discussion - Prune is international.
The truth is the CAA could learn a great deal from the FAA's approach in the 'US of A' - the problem is the CAA doesn't think it can.

Bright-Ling
Your retraining idea is a good one. A court has no power to order retraining but the CAA could easily do so and, in appropriate cases should. Far more effective than fining the pilot.

[Bright-Ling]

Slim Slag...

Round these parts (a much busier TMA than London), if you bust some airspace you get told to call a controller and have a chat.

We don't have time to bollock pilots on freq! Maybe yr TMA isn't as busy as you thought!!!!:ok:

[slim_slag]

Sorry Bright-ling, different use of English, "call" in my neck of the woods can also mean phone-call. The TMA is a busy one, but better resourced too, and we all seem to get along fine and dandy :)

Funnily enough, when I got told to "call" the tower with a ten digit number (as opposed to "contact" the tower with a number I could fit in my radio) , the controller said I had not followed an instruction he had given me. Neither my safety pilot nor I actually heard the instruction. I could have had the tapes pulled but that would probably (two witnesses against one) have got the controller into trouble. He probably made a mistake, no harm was done, and so no point in escalating it. I got a very valuable lecture on safety from his point of view, and I respected everything he said, but not taking it further was definitely the best thing to do.

FL, agree with what you say.

Prof, disagree totally, but that's OK and when you accidently bust a reg (because you will) I hope you get fined and lose your licence :)

[rustle]

dmjw01 "Sam Thomson, the journo who wrote the article, seems to have avoided the temptation to write a load of sensationalist tripe and instead produced a level-headed account of the facts"

"...drifted into the flight path of the Red Arrows display team."

Alexander Stevenson's tiny craft was spotted seconds before the famous aerobatic flight prepared to roar across the sky.

Thousands of spectators at the Airbourne Festival on Eastbourne seafront watched as the microlight was forced to fly out of the danger zone.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) launched an investigation following the near-miss in August last year.
(My bolding in the quote above)

No "sensationalist tripe" there then :rolleyes:

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Getting back "On Track", the scenario we're discussing seems pretty black & white to me. The pilot was inadequately briefed and entered temporary restricted airspace. Whether he should have been prosecuted is the more subjective.

As one who has regularly dealt with such mis-demeanours, I have a couple of points:

Firstly, a quiet chat invariable resolves any conflict. Almost all pilots understand and accept the issue and probably walk away as better aviators. However, the "quiet chat" scenario also hides the scale of the problem. As an Ex SATCO operating within Class A CAS, I used to file for every single CTR infringement. My rational was to create an audit trail so that the Authority had to sit up and recognise the various problems. However, with each report, I would always pass a recommendation for appropriate follow-up action. On almost all occasions, this recommendation was that no further action needed taking; my comments were always accepted as the preferred course of action. This leads me on to my second point.

Only once did I end-up in court. I will spare you the detail but it revolved around a CPL(H) who swore blind that he was not wrong. Despite radar replay tapes and numerous witness testament, he was adamant that he had not contravened regulations. He chose to take the issue to court and ended up with a hefty fine.


Fly Safely

[slim_slag]

My dear, angry, Undergraduate Dexter.

Nobody said he did it on purpose. Anybody who busts regs on purpose should have nasty things done to him including loss of licence for some period of time. Same for any pilot who gets caught and thinks he is above all this regulation stuff.

People make mistakes, it's how we handle things after they make the mistake. More importantly it's how we prevent the mistakes from happening in the first place. SATCO appears to be one of the controllers who exhibits the "understanding and mutual respect" I referred to earlier. Alas it seems he is in a minority.

Moving on from punishment and to what do we do about this. SATCO, I think you are right to collect stats because otherwise we cannot fix things, but I think all pilots (from private pilot to the almighty ATP) would all be a bit wary that you should pass on our names. The CAA or other colleagues of yours might not be as nice as you :).

That is the beauty of the FAA/NASA system. It encourages people to report mistakes. As long as there was not an accident or lawbreaking involved, your name is kept out of it.

Last month (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_283.htm) there were 1,945 reports from Air Carrier/Air Taxi Pilots, and 51 from controllers. These are the professionals admitting things might have gone wrong. Are we going to prosecute a couple of thousand of extremely competent and well trained people every month? Sure, not all are reg busts, but a lot are.

When I filled out the form for my accidental Class B violation, I had already totally "got away with it". But instead of hiding from the likes of our esteemed and worthy academic colleague, I actually sent in my name, address, pilot certificate number, and details of my airspace bust. That is a far better system of handling the sorts of offence that happened over Eastbourne, and should be mirrored in the UK.

And to prevent abuse of my worthless alias, this is all IMO of course.:p :p

So after shooting a few neighbours for disagreeing with the colour of my fence, I put away my handgun and went looking for how the FAA controllers are treated when they mess up.

FAA order 7210.3 Facility Operation and Administration (http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/FAC/Ch2/s0202.2.html#2-2-10)



2-2-10. PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

a. Remedial training shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 3, of FAAO 3120.4, Air Traffic Technical Training.

b. Performance deficiencies which have proven not to be correctable through the remediation process shall be resolved under FAAO 3500.7, FAA Performance Management System.

c. Disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee for performance which led to an operational error or deviation if all the following conditions were met:

1. The employee's action or lack of action was inadvertent; and

2. The employee's action or lack of action did not involve a criminal offense, accident, or action under Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act which discloses a lack of qualification or competency, which is wholly excluded from this policy; and

3. The employee shows proof that within 10 days after the occurrence of the operational error or deviation he/she completed and delivered or mailed a written report of the occurrence to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).


Looks like a mature and responsible approach to mistakes.

So I know it's in the US of A, and not merry olde Englande. But you have to start somewhere, and why not copy a model that works :)

[Heliport]

Before anyone reacts, slim_slag's comments about shooting, handguns and 'Englande' were in response to a post which I've deleted.

His response is commendably restrained given the childish anti-American comments in the deleted post.


Heliport
SuperModerator